I vote that it should not be removed, however I am saddened that those of us who do belive in GOD, often do not live as if we do. Our nation as a whole does not often live up to the phrase which has become so controversial in the United States POA.

Well, it won't let me vote for some odd reason, but I think it should stay.

If it goes, I suppose every Bible verse on the walls of most of our nation's federal buildings should be chiseled off, or every mention of the Christian God in the speeches of our founding fathers edited out. Which, of course, would be insane.

"It wasn't built on god, it was built on freedom. Including freedom of religion. Which means the government shouldn't favour any religion. Which means it goes."

When our founding fathers stressed religious freedom, I'm pretty sure they weren't talking about petty things like this. They were concerned with the country forcing one religion on everyone, and persecuting those who chose to follow their own religion. Having something printed on money or spoken in the pledge of allegiance is hardly persecution.

As for what this country was or wasn't founded on, most of the founding fathers, if not all, believed in God, and most were Christian. Christian principle and morals were handed down and taught in families and schools during the early days of our country. Our nation was founded on God, if not officially, then at least unofficially. And the government doesn't favor any one religion over another these days anyway. I'm sure when they first put "God" on buildings and such, Thomas Jefferson didn't get his underwear in a bunch, even though he wasn't Christian. God, as many others in this thread have said, is a rather generic title.

I personally do not see why it's a problem for people who don't believe in God. Our society seems to do a LOT of things out of tradition that were once done out of religious reasons. How is this any different?

For those of us who love God, though, and want His name to remain out of our dependence upon Him (the dependence the founding fathers had), His name should be left in there. Those who don't believe don't have to believe. No one's forcing the belief in God on you.

If you don't believe in God and think that "Under God" being in the pledge is offensive, and I do believe in God and I feel that "under God" being removed is offensive, who's civil rights are more important than the other's?Who's harmed the most?

'God' in the pledge is most certainly referring to a deity. And a Judeo-Christian one at that. (please refer to my past posts in this thread for the origins of how and why "under God" was put into the pledge.)

For those of us who love God, though, and want His name to remain out of our dependence upon Him (the dependence the founding fathers had), His name should be left in there. Those who don't believe don't have to believe. No one's forcing the belief in God on you.

I'm not telling you to stop loving a god. I'm not even telling you to stop believing in one. But when it comes to something that belongs to everyone in the USA, such as the POA, I believe it should be neutral.

Taking out "under God" will not stop those of you who believe in a god from believing in one, will it? You still have the right to worship a god at home or at church.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, why should I feel like a second class citizen in my own country just because I don't believe in 'God'? Why should I be subjected to religious references in my government? I thought this was a free country? I guess it is only free if you believe in a god (judeo-christian in particular), and the rest of us should just grin and bare it.

Oh well!

p.s. Please don't take me for someone who sits around all day and makes this argument my life mission. I just like some friendy discussion about the subject. In the overall scheme of things, this is not a big deal!

p.s. Please don't take me for someone who sits around all day and makes this argument my life mission. I just like some friendy discussion about the subject. In the overall scheme of things, this is not a big deal!

And don't take me to be a right-wing relious zealot. Those guys creep me out too.

If that was the case, Al Gore would be president( ), women would not have equal rights,and segregation would still be going on in the South.

I said they rule, not that they're always right.

That's the great thing about the Constitution, it protects my right to not believe in a God as much as it protects your right to believe in a God.

When it comes to personal rights, the majority most certainly does not rule.

That's the thing though, to remove it would be to (appearently) impinge on my rights to worship God. Not removing it would (appearently) impinge on your rights to not worship a god. Who's rights overrides the other's?

In the mid-50's, President Eisenhower signed it into the POA after being lobbied by religious individuals. This was also seen as being a "good thing" in order to separate the U.S. from the non-believing communist Russians.

I don't remember seeing anywhere that the country got to decide this issue, (granted, they probably would have voted for it.)

It appears to me that a minority wanted "under God" in the POA, and it was also used for political and patriotic reasons as well.

If we took out "under God" and reverted back to the original version, it would be neutral.

What's wrong with a neutral POA? You sure wouldn't want a POA that said "one nation, not under a god because I don't believe in one" would you?

Just as I don't like having one that says "under God."

Take out all reference of a god, and it is, to reference someone earlier, PC.

Here's a post (not the whole post though) by Cheveyo that I copied from the Senete Floor in the Separation of Church and State thread. I thought it would be appropriate here as well.

Enjoy.

An interesting article from cnn.com:

Appeals court refuses to reconsider Pledge of Allegiance decision:

A snipet from the article...

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- A federal appeals court Friday rejected the Bush administration's request to reconsider its decision that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional because of the phrase "under God."

The ruling means the case could go to the Supreme Court. In Washington, a Justice Department spokesman said no decision has been made about whether to appeal the ruling there.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said it would not accept any other petitions to reconsider last June's ruling by a three-judge panel that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public classrooms.

And here is a quote from Judge Alfred T. Goodwin:
"The recitation that ours is a nation 'under God' is not a mere acknowledgment that many Americans believe in a deity. Nor is it merely descriptive of the undeniable historical significance of religion in the founding of the Republic. Rather, the phrase 'one nation under God' in the context of the Pledge is normative. To recite the Pledge is not to describe the United States; instead, it is to swear allegiance to the values for which the flag stands: unity, indivisibility, liberty, justice, and -- since 1954 -- monotheism. The text of the official Pledge, codified in federal law, impermissibly takes a position with respect to the purely religious question of the existence and identity of God. A profession that we are a nation 'under God' is identical, for Establishment Clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation 'under Jesus,' a nation 'under Vishnu,' a nation 'under Zeus,' or a nation 'under no god,' because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion."